Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Nonsense; marriage is already not procreative in this country, without removing any of the other limitations you've listed. Surely you're aware that sterile couples, older couples, or couples with no intention to procreate are also allowed to get married, and have been since the get-go? In fact, there is no clause or additional stipulation that one is obligated to have children anywhere in state marriage licenses; what you're proposing here is a slippery slope that we can already determine to be flatly false, because the concept you're saying will be removed with the addition of gay marriage never existed within the current model of marriage at all. You're proposing that there's a brake currently in place against a number of factors, when it's the work of but a moment to show that this brake does not exist.

1. Anthropologically speaking (and in accordance with history within the United States) marriage was primarily an institution to establish the legitimate heir (procreation centric), particularly of nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Re...tom_or_law). This is made more evident in that historically women were not allowed to own property in which case her property and security were determined by the inheritance of her child. Marriage served this same function unchanged in the US until the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_...ily_law%29) at which time marriage did not abandon its procreation centric definition, but was expanded to include illegitimate heirs.

2. Regarding marriage of infertility, elderly, and those with out the intention to procreate (a point brought up in the oar arguments by Ginsburg). Respondents stipulate inquiry into the procreative ability or intention of parties to marry would constitute a violation of 4th amendment rights to privacy. Respondents further state that any definition of marriage shall be over and under inclusive (http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/over-inclusive/), where procreative over inclusiveness allows for the legal marriage of infertile, elderly, and non-procreation intending parties. Respondent further emphasizes the Supreme court has held that over or under inclusivness in and of itself does not constitute invidious discrimination and a violation of the equal protection clause. Respondent also comments how a heterosexual couple in their elder years are still fertile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50) and have natural conception.

3. As argued by respondent, the only right the government or states have in regards to marriage is due to the children. The government does not have a right to police private relationships unless said policing satisfies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires the government to have a compelling interest, which respondent stipulates the state's have in regards to children and population under marriage as procreation centric. Respondent further argues that were marriage to be adult centric and not procreation centric than the state could not approve or disapprove as the state would lack a compelling interest to interject in the private associations of people.

I haven't much more than skimmed the argument of the petitioners, but if that's indeed what they argued then in turn I would argue that they were being overly broad and simplistic, and that it's more rational to consider limitations on a case by case basis, and determine whether they should stand or fall based on the factual benefits or detriments they may have, which the anti-gay marriage side cannot cogently provide.

 
Indeed they are being overly broad and simplistic. But it may be stated that you are being unrealistic. To endeavor to go on a case by case basis is to say there is particular application of the law(s) and thus we should opt to act against equal protection for a more tailored approach (regardless of limited time and resources)

However, your procreation centric definition of marriage contains no limits to the participant's fertility, nor does it contain even a hint of language toward that end. You are proscribing an attitude toward marriage that is directly contradicted by how it functions in practice. And if you want to talk about biological facts, I'd remind you that monogamy is not present anywhere in our makeup.

How does it not. Legal age of marriage under a procreation centric definition is at minimum pubescent age or the age of fertility. I am not sure where you are coming up my attitude toward marriage as directly contradiction how it functions in practice (particularly as I have not state my stance on marriage, but have been referring to various arguments of the respondent and other legal scholars) or monogamy is not anywhere present in our makeup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy) it would seem that monogamy has been around with humans for sometime now.

---

Regarding the equal protection argument.  A violation of equal protection is made most apparent by considering the qualifier and then removing it to see if the answer remains the same.  For example as regards to racial discrimination on marriage:

1.  Can a white man and white woman get married = yes
2.  Can a black man and black woman get married = yes
3.  Can a white man and black woman get married = no
4.  Can a black man and white woman get married = no

Now if we posit the question devoid of the discriminatory qualifier the answer must be the same otherwise it violates equal protection clause:

5.  Can a man and woman get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)

Applying the same method to a sexual orientation qualifier:

1. Can a straight man and straight man get married = no
2. Can a gay man and gay man get married = no
3. Can a straight man and gay man get married = no
4. Can a straight woman and straight woman get married = no
5. Can a lesbian woman and lesbian woman get married  = no
6. Can a straight woman and lesbian woman get married = no

Again we ask the question without the qualifier.  If the answer is the same than there is no violation of equal protection:

7.  Can a man and man get married = no (does not violation of equal protection)
8.  Can a woman and woman get married = no (does not violation of equal protection)
9.  Can the same gender marry = no (does not violation of equal protection)

There is no violation of equal protection.
...

You have worded it for your particular purposes.  Think of it this way:

1. Can a female person marry a man = yes
2. Can a male person marry a man = no.

Here we have a female person allowed to do something a male person in not allowed to do.

3. Can a male person marry a woman = yes
4. Can a female person marry a woman = no

Here we have a male person allowed to do something a female person is not allowed to do.

So we have discrimination.

To use your language:

Now if we posit the question devoid of the discriminatory qualifier the answer must be the same otherwise it violates equal protection clause:

5.  Can a person and woman get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)
6.  Can a person and a man get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)


Edited to add:


Or if you prefer this wording:

7.  Can a person and a person get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)

The organization you propose serves as a way to determine discrimination according to gender, but not according to orientation (as evidenced by the stripping of gender as the qualifier and not of sexual orientation). Under the example you provide male person and female person are both permitted and prohibited from doing the same thing. Which is marry a person of the opposite gender and not marry one of their own gender. This is not a violation of equal protection in regards to gender (which serves as your qualifier). Furthermore, when stripping out the qualifier you must strip from all parties not just the first party.